The United States has no formal religion. It has no religious test for public office holders or an oath to divine authority. And its Constitution (the First Amendment in particular) prohibits the state from favoring any church establishment. If, however, you came from abroad, unfamiliar with this country, you would have to be excused for mistaking America as a country engulfed in symbols and practices more commonly associated with states steeped in religion.
When you convert your foreign currency into dollars you will see the phrase “In God We Trust” emblazoned on its currency. If you attend a public event, you will hear people pledging allegiance to a country “under God,” and if you witness the oath to public office you will hear it end with the words “So help me God.” None of these religious manifestations existed at the creation of the United States consistent with the letter and intent of the constitution to keep matters of faith and state separate. Had we lived back then, we would have noticed a lot of religious fervor and widespread practicing of religious duties among those early Americans, but no overt signs the state and its civil servants were out to promote any religious creed.
The fact that in this and other ways the US has moved away from its founding agnosticism is the second paradox about religion in today’s America. In this, as in other respects explored in the previous blogpost, America differs from the countries its first colonists sailed away from to escape religious persecution and wars centuries ago. What we are observing is that the separation of church and state is more and more interpreted by religious zealots as a way to keep the state out of religion, conveniently ignoring that the reverse is also part of this constitutional arrangement. The more intense forays of religion in the “public square” are all the more interesting when we consider that the fraction of Americans affiliated with religious establishments, including Christian churches, has been shrinking.
Contrary to the complaints of religious activists that religious liberties are under attack, religious freedoms are very well protected and well-coordinated litigation and political pressure have actually blurred the lines of separation between church and state. No longer religious establishments are excluded from the allocation of public funds, even if they can be used to support direct religious activities (that’s exactly the case with the Paycheck Protection Program of the Covid-19 relief law). Service to customers can be denied on the ground of freedom of expression and religion. Health insurance coverage for contraceptives can also be denied to employees for religious reasons. Government funds cannot be used for abortion, despite its legality. At the behest of religious organizations, Republican administrations routinely deny aid to foreign agencies engaging in reproductive and abortion-related services to poor people. The Trump administration went even further with its “Conscience Rule” that would have allowed medical professionals to deny care on the ground of religious or moral beliefs.
In general, we observe that religious activism has a two-progue objective. One is to strengthen the influence, if not the grip, of religious interests on judicial and government authorities. The other is to shape the moral landscape of Americans in ways that conform to certain Christian beliefs. Actually, the first objective is motivated by the second, which is also the one that should have us all worry because of its political and constitutional consequences. A little history here is instructive.
For its first three centuries, operating within the Roman Imperium, Christianity grew on the strength of its moral and spiritual message with no state support. Once, however, it was declared the official religion by Emperor Theodosius the Great at the end of the fourth century, Christian leaders sought to erase any religious competition. By wining over or waging war on pagan rulers, Christianity succeeded in becoming the official religion through-out Europe. This method of expansion to new people under the aegis of the state continued in the centuries of explorations and colonialism. Evangelizing to others has been a time-honored mission of Christian churches.
But capturing the state and using it as a tool to force on others the morals of any faith can undermine the principle of religious tolerance and eventually even the principle of democratic life. No other block of American Christians has done this with greater determination than Evangelical Christians. Despite his serious moral flaws, denigration of women and people with disabilities, and his harsh policies in treating immigrants and Muslims, Evangelicals, and especially white evangelicals, embraced Donald Trump as their champion and even savior in an almost messianic way. In their desire to continue with a political regime that promised to advance their moral and religious agenda they reached the point to forswear their allegiance to the democratic governance of the country by becoming perpetrators of the ‘Stolen Election’ lie.
What is more worrisome, however, is the willingness of politicians and even of a whole party, i.e., the Republican Party, to reciprocate the embracing gestures of the Evangelicals. Today, Evangelicals comprise the single largest religious block of the Republican Party. A 2019 survey revealed that 78% of Evangelicals are registered Republicans compared to 56% in 2000. This strong party loyalty of Evangelicals is explained by the entreaties they see coming from Republican politicians. Besides Trump who assured them that “God is on our side,” former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had declared himself as a “Christian Leader” on the homepage of the department’s website. Other Republicans tooting their loyalty to Evangelical priorities are Mike Pence, Ted Cruz, and Josh Hawley, all of them with presidential aspirations.
This party symbiosis with a single religious block is entirely new, at least in its intensity, in the recent history of American politics. It is more reminiscent of those past alliances of political, government and religious leaders that led to intolerance, strife and violation of the political and civil rights of opponents. The politicization of religion, if it continues, it will gravely challenge the future of the American Republic as a multicultural, multi-faith, and open polity. The end result will no longer resemble anything the Founding Fathers had in mind.
These trends, I believe, should have all democratic-minded Americans worried, irrespective of religious or secular beliefs. White Christian nationalism taking root in American politics is not just a paradox in a country in which the things that are Caesar’s ought to be separate from the things that are God’s. It is rather outright dangerous, and, yes, un-American.
Let's Reason 